Advertisement

Efficient and inefficient ant coverage methods

  • Sven Koenig
  • Boleslaw Szymanski
  • Yaxin Liu
Article

Abstract

Ant robots are simple creatures with limited sensing and computational capabilities. They have the advantage that they are easy to program and cheap to build. This makes it feasible to deploy groups of ant robots and take advantage of the resulting fault tolerance and parallelism. We study, both theoretically and in simulation, the behavior of ant robots for one-time or repeated coverage of terrain, as required for lawn mowing, mine sweeping, and surveillance. Ant robots cannot use conventional planning methods due to their limited sensing and computational capabilities. To overcome these limitations, we study navigation methods that are based on real-time (heuristic) search and leave markings in the terrain, similar to what real ants do. These markings can be sensed by all ant robots and allow them to cover terrain even if they do not communicate with each other except via the markings, do not have any kind of memory, do not know the terrain, cannot maintain maps of the terrain, nor plan complete paths. The ant robots do not even need to be localized, which completely eliminates solving difficult and time-consuming localization problems. We study two simple real-time search methods that differ only in how the markings are updated. We show experimentally that both real-time search methods robustly cover terrain even if the ant robots are moved without realizing this (say, by people running into them), some ant robots fail, and some markings get destroyed. Both real-time search methods are algorithmically similar, and our experimental results indicate that their cover time is similar in some terrains. Our analysis is therefore surprising. We show that the cover time of ant robots that use one of the real-time search methods is guaranteed to be polynomial in the number of locations, whereas the cover time of ant robots that use the other real-time search method can be exponential in (the square root of) the number of locations even in simple terrains that correspond to (planar) undirected trees.

ant robots cover time graph coverage lawn mowing learning real-time A* node counting real-time heuristic search surveillance vacuum cleaning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F. Adler and D. Gordon, Information collection and spread by networks of patrolling ants, The American Naturalist 140(3) (1992) 373-400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    T. Balch and R. Arkin, Avoiding the past: A simple, but effective strategy for reactive navigation, in: International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1993) pp. 678-685.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Barto, S. Bradtke and S. Singh, Learning to act using real-time dynamic programming, Artif. Intell. 73(1) (1995) 81-138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Bonet and H. Geffner, Planning with incomplete information as heuristic search in belief space, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (2000) pp. 52-61.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    B. Bonet, G. Loerincs and H. Geffner, A robust and fast action selection mechanism, in: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1997) pp. 714-719.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Brooks and A. Flynn, Fast, cheap, and out of control: A robot invasion of the solar system, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (1989) 478-485.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. Chartrand and L. Lesniak, Graphs and Digraphs (Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, 2nd edition, 1986).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    T. Ishida, Real-Time Search for Learning Autonomous Agents (Kluwer Academic, 1997).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    T. Ishida and R. Korf, Moving target search, in: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1991) pp. 204-210.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    L. Kaelbling, M. Littman and A. Moore, Reinforcement learning: A survey, J. Artif. Intell. Res. 4 (1996) 237-285.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Koenig, A. Blum, T. Ishida and R. Korf, eds., Proceedings of the AAAI-97 Workshop on On-Line Search (AAAI Press, 1997). Available as AAAI Technical Report WS-97-10.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Koenig and R.G. Simmons, Real-time search in non-deterministic domains, in: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1995) pp. 1660-1667.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Koenig and R.G. Simmons, Easy and hard testbeds for real-time search algorithms, in: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1996) pp. 279-285.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Koenig and R.G. Simmons, Solving robot navigation problems with initial pose uncertainty using real-time heuristic search, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (1998) pp. 145-153.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    S. Koenig and B. Szymanski, Value-update rules for real-time search, in: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1999) pp. 718-724.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Korf, Real-time heuristic search: First results, in: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1987) pp. 133-138.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R. Korf, Real-time heuristic search, Artif. Intell. 42(2-3) (1990) 189-211.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    N. Nilsson, Problem-Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence (McGraw-Hill, 1971).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Pearl, Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem Solving (Addison-Wesley, 1985).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Pirzadeh and W. Snyder, A unified solution to coverage and search in explored and unexplored terrains using indirect control, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1990) pp. 2113-2119.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    R. Russell, Heat trails as short-lived navigational markers for mobile robots, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1997) pp. 3534-3539.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    R. Russell, D. Thiel and A. Mackay-Sim, Sensing odour trails for mobile robot navigation, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1994) pp. 2672-2677.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. Russell and E. Wefald, Do the Right Thing-Studies in Limited Rationality (MIT Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. Sharpe and B. Webb, Simulated and situated models of chemical trail following in ants, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (1998) pp. 195-204.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    R. Sutton and A. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (MIT Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    B. Szymanski and S. Koenig, The complexity of node counting on undirected graphs, Technical Report, Computer Science Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY (1998).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    S. Thrun, Efficient exploration in reinforcement learning. Technical Report CMU-CS-92-102, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (1992).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    S. Thrun, The role of exploration in learning control, in: Handbook of Intelligent Control: Neural, Fuzzy and Adaptive Approaches, eds. D. White and D. Sofge (Van Nostrand-Reinhold, 1992) pp. 527-559.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    I. Wagner, M. Lindenbaum and A. Bruckstein, On-line graph searching by a smell-oriented vertex process, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on On-Line Search, eds. S. Koenig, A. Blum, T. Ishida and R. Korf (1997) pp. 122-125. Available as AAAI Technical Report WS-97-10.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    I. Wagner, M. Lindenbaum and A. Bruckstein, Efficiently searching a dynamic graph by a smell-oriented vertex process, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 24 (1998) 211-223.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Koenig
    • 1
  • Boleslaw Szymanski
    • 2
  • Yaxin Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.College of ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations